Thanks for the feedback. I hear that you did not leave once and for all, so I might stop by once in a while :) I myself do not blog right now. But that means nothing. Just busy with other things.

While I think that what you say is true, that in general the knowledge of artificial intelligence is rather unprofessional, I think that on the whole people who live in highly engineered modern societies have an idea of it. In fact, AI's replace human work and one might wonder to what extent this will affect us humans in the future. A legitimate question, since AI technology is already in use to a large extent and will continue to be so. One may accuse the masses of a certain wisdom, because even if they cannot adequately cite the explanatory models for this in detail, they can nevertheless anticipate and foresee the effects. Despite marketing, exaggerated or false promises, people are quite capable of structuring their own situation and world view and of imagining effects on their own lives. What is verbally expressed in headlines, praise or condemnation, one can, if one wants, bring into a moderate form for oneself and only draw the essence from it: That modern man is not clueless. Even the way of perhaps clumsy and technically incorrect communication does not obscure it.

Siraj Raval will have to live with the fact that he has now ruined his reputation and has to bear the legal consequences of the plagiarism; on the other hand, I hear he will reap some gratitude for the educational work he has done. Both will play a greater or lesser role in his life. Depending on what he still has to learn. Some people need strong reactions in order to believe that what they have appropriated is indeed illegitimate. This may be because they separate state & law from themselves and do not accept the laws of a country or in the world. Especially in the field of copyright there are more and more discussions since the internet about who should claim where and what a copyright should be on and this discussion sometimes - I think erroneously - results in a kind of slackening of who claims to what intellectual property. Recently I followed a discussion about a photography plagiarism, where an artist simply pulled a picture out of the net and then changed it and presented it as her own work of art. In fact, the views on this were divided, although the law makes clear statements about it. I have the impression that the Internet has contributed greatly to softening the boundaries between property and public good. Whatever it's good for, it's never black or white.

Those who are professional, like you, can give their expertise and, if they are able to translate professional language into general language, make their contribution to educational work. It's also a compliment to Raval that you've given and if it weren't for his infringement, he really seems to have a talent for explaining things that are difficult to explain.